Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TR: Turning the gain up on this shit.

Topic: Oldest Human Remains (Read 25352 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3975
we already know from the Nile sites that the flow was from the Levant into Egypt.
No. We don't know that.
And - as usual - your assertion is devoid of any support in the form of reference, link or copy-pasted relevant material.
It really is astonishing how self-unaware you are.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3976
So how did the Egyptians/Ethiopians split from West Africans EARLIER than from Non-Africans?

"Time machine"? :rofl:
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3977
Quote
In conclusion, the analysis of Ethiopian′ and Egyptian′ whole-genome sequence data identifies modern Egyptians as the African population whose genome and haplotype frequency most closely resemble those of non-African populations.
The fact that we could identify in Egyptians an African genomic component that is distinct from West and East African components further supports a minor degree of population continuity in Egypt since the OOA dispersal.

I understand the first sentence which is perfectly consistent with the Out of the Middle East theory.
I do not understand the second sentence.

  • uncool
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3978
The first sentence is not consistent with a basal L3.

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3979
Quote
We generated 225 whole-genome sequences (225 at 8× depth, of which 8 were increased to 30×; Illumina HiSeq 2000) from six modern Northeast African populations (100 Egyptians and five Ethiopian populations each represented by 25 individuals). West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes, pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world. Using five Ethiopian and three Egyptian high-coverage masked genomes and the multiple sequentially Markovian coalescent (MSMC) approach, we estimated the genetic split times of Egyptians and Ethiopians from non-African populations at 55,000 and 65,000 years ago, respectively, whereas that of West Africans was estimated to be 75,000 years ago. Both the haplotype and MSMC analyses thus suggest a predominant northern route out of Africa via Egypt.

The bolded part supports a migration from the Levant
Notice the next bolded part. Again this supports a migration from the Levant.
Note that as with all the articles the researchers are working within an Out of Africa theory. I am interested in the actual evidence and not their interpretations.
What the bolded part shows, is that the Egyptians were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were the Ethiopians.
The evidence indicates that humans first appeared in the Levant. From there one branch went across the Sinai and established the Nile sites. Another branch expanded throughout Arabia and some of those migrated across the Red Sea and entered Ethiopia.
Other branches expanded into Europe and Asia.

  • Faid
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3980
Quote
In conclusion, the analysis of Ethiopian′ and Egyptian′ whole-genome sequence data identifies modern Egyptians as the African population whose genome and haplotype frequency most closely resemble those of non-African populations.
The fact that we could identify in Egyptians an African genomic component that is distinct from West and East African components further supports a minor degree of population continuity in Egypt since the OOA dispersal.

I understand the first sentence which is perfectly consistent with the Out of the Middle East theory.
I do not understand the second sentence.

You don't understand either sentence.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3981
The evidence indicates that humans first appeared in the Levant. From there one branch went across the Sinai and established the Nile sites. Another branch expanded throughout Arabia and some of those migrated across the Red Sea and entered Ethiopia.
Other branches expanded into Europe and Asia.
Nonsense.

L0.

Omo I.

Anything else?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3982
Quote
We generated 225 whole-genome sequences (225 at 8× depth, of which 8 were increased to 30×; Illumina HiSeq 2000) from six modern Northeast African populations (100 Egyptians and five Ethiopian populations each represented by 25 individuals). West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes, pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world. Using five Ethiopian and three Egyptian high-coverage masked genomes and the multiple sequentially Markovian coalescent (MSMC) approach, we estimated the genetic split times of Egyptians and Ethiopians from non-African populations at 55,000 and 65,000 years ago, respectively, whereas that of West Africans was estimated to be 75,000 years ago. Both the haplotype and MSMC analyses thus suggest a predominant northern route out of Africa via Egypt.

The bolded part supports a migration from the Levant
Notice the next bolded part. Again this supports a migration from the Levant.
Note that as with all the articles the researchers are working within an Out of Africa theory. I am interested in the actual evidence and not their interpretations.
What the bolded part shows, is that the Egyptians were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were the Ethiopians.
The evidence indicates that humans first appeared in the Levant. From there one branch went across the Sinai and established the Nile sites. Another branch expanded throughout Arabia and some of those migrated across the Red Sea and entered Ethiopia.
Other branches expanded into Europe and Asia.
The evidence you just quoted shows that's not true....
Quote
Using five Ethiopian and three Egyptian high-coverage masked genomes and the multiple sequentially Markovian coalescent (MSMC) approach, we estimated the genetic split times of Egyptians and Ethiopians from non-African populations at 55,000 and 65,000 years ago, respectively, whereas that of West Africans was estimated to be 75,000 years ago.
The evidence shows the earliest split occurred within the African population. Once again, you post evidence that clearly supports out-of-Africa and claim, based on no reasoning whatsoever, that it instead supports your own baseless beliefs. Do you not understand why the evidence supports out-of-Africa, or are you simply lying about it?

  • Faid
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3983
Oh, he's lying alright. It's the Just Pretending stage.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3984
The evidence indicates that humans first appeared in the Levant.
No. It doesn't.
Quote
From there one branch went across the Sinai and established the Nile sites. Another branch expanded throughout Arabia and some of those migrated across the Red Sea and entered Ethiopia.
Other branches expanded into Europe and Asia.
A whole lot of assertions, with nary a reference, link or scrap of copy-pasted relevant material to support any of them.

Dismissed.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3985
As a sidenote:
The Omo I date calculation is more suspect due to the presence of the primitive Omo II with it. This implies that both were washed in together from different places. That is why the reference I gave earlier suggests that the Omo I and II may be from some other places. In which case we do not know their dating.
Other date calculations such as Misliya are not like that.
As a further point the Omo I fossil is not a human.

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3986
As a sidenote:
The Omo I date calculation is more suspect due to the presence of the primitive Omo II with it. This implies that both were washed in together from different places. That is why the reference I gave earlier suggests that the Omo I and II may be from some other places. In which case we do not know their dating.
Wrong.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248408000985?via%3Dihub
Quote
The papers in this volume provide a detailed stratigraphic analysis of the Kibish Formation and a series of new radiometric dates that indicate an age of 196 ± 2 ka for Member I and 104 ± 1 for Member III, confirming the antiquity of the lower parts of the Kibish Formation and, in turn, the fossils from Member I.
Other date calculations such as Misliya are not like that.
As a further point the Omo I fossil is not a human.
Wrong.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248408000985?via%3Dihub
Quote
Studies of the postcranial remains of Omo I indicate an overall modern human morphology with a number of primitive features.
And note that I provided reference links and copy/pastes, unlike your baseless, disproven assertions.

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3987
It is driving people crazy that I am not giving both reference link and copy and paste. I have put up with you folks giving neither for years.
But it is nice to see people starting to do it.

  • uncool
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3988
Lol, "I'm a hypocrite, let's blame other people!"

Never change, hypocrite.

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3989
Quote
Studies of the postcranial remains of Omo I indicate an overall modern human morphology with a number of primitive features.

Yup - a number of primitive features means it is not a human.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3990
Yet another unsupported assertion.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3991
I wonder if people realize that the Omo I and Omo II are ABOVE the Member I layer. The dating of Member I is irrelevant if Omo I and Omo II were washed into the position above Member I.

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3992
It is driving people crazy that I am not giving both reference link and copy and paste. I have put up with you folks giving neither for years.
But it is nice to see people starting to do it.
When everyone starts to do it I will start up again.

  • uncool
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3993
As if you ever did consistently.

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3994
Quote
Studies of the postcranial remains of Omo I indicate an overall modern human morphology with a number of primitive features.

Yup - a number of primitive features means it is not a human.
Nope. It means it's an early human.

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3995
I wonder if people realize that the Omo I and Omo II are ABOVE the Member I layer. The dating of Member I is irrelevant if Omo I and Omo II were washed into the position above Member I.
I wonder if you realize your baseless speculation has been disproven many times already. Here's another...
https://archive.unews.utah.edu/news_releases/the-oldest-homo-sapiens/
Quote
Brown says potassium-argon dating shows that a layer of ash no more than 10 feet (3 meters) below Omo I's and Omo II's burial place is 196,000 years old, give or take 2,000 years. Another layer is 104,000 years old. It is almost 160 feet (50 meters) above the layer that yielded the Omo humans. The unconformities represent periods of time when rock was eroded, so the fossils must be much older than the 104,000-year-old layer and close in age to the 196,000-year-old layer, Brown says.

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3996
It is driving people crazy that I am not giving both reference link and copy and paste. I have put up with you folks giving neither for years.
But it is nice to see people starting to do it.
When everyone starts to do it I will start up again.
You actually present a stronger case by not doing it. When you don't provide references, perhaps some of the guests might wonder if there is any basis to your assertions. When you provide the references, they can plainly see that your assertions are baseless.

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3997
Quote
Studies of the postcranial remains of Omo I indicate an overall modern human morphology with a number of primitive features.

Yup - a number of primitive features means it is not a human.
Nope. It means it's an early human.
Perhaps Socrates doesn't understand that evolution involves transitional forms, such as early humans with some archaic features. Perhaps he is under the misapprehension that it operates via "huge saltations" that somehow immediately transform one species into another overnight. This is how it would need to operate for his baseless assertions to be correct.

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3998
I wonder if people realize that the Omo I and Omo II are ABOVE the Member I layer. The dating of Member I is irrelevant if Omo I and Omo II were washed into the position above Member I.
To repeat, this is an issue for the dating of Omo I because the primitive Omo II is at the same depth. But not worth arguing. People here seem unable to grasp this point.

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #3999
I do realize that there are transitionals. Neanderthals are great transitionals. Particularly since they are 99.7% identical to humans. But again not worth arguing because you folks do not work on the basis of evidence.